_G_

The _fragmentum Guelferbytanum_, _Cod. Guelf. 13.11 Aug. 4_, generally dated to the fifth or sixth century, is the oldest manuscript witness to any of Ovid's poems. Part of the collection of the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbuttel, it was discovered by Carl Schoenemann, who published his discovery in 1829; details of his monograph will be found in the bibliography. The two pieces of parchment are a palimpsest, having been reused in the eighth century for a text of Augustine; later they were incorporated into a bookbinding. As a result of this treatment they are in extremely poor condition.

_G_ contains all or part of ix 101-8, ix 127-33, xii 15-19, and xii 41-44. To make it perfectly clear when _G_ is a witness to the text, I have not grouped it with other manuscripts, but have always specified it by name. If _G_ is not mentioned in an apparatus entry, it is not extant for the text concerned.

_G_ is written in uncial script, with no division between words but with indentation of the pentameters. Its one contribution to the establishment of the text is at ix 103, where it reads _quamquam ... sit_ instead of the more usual _quamquam ... est_ found in the other manuscripts. In general, the text offered by _G_ is surprisingly poor.

At ix 108 it reads _fato_ for _facto_, at ix 130 it has the false and unmetrical spelling _praeces_, at ix 132 it has _misscelite_ for _misi caelite_, at xii 17 it reads _lati_ for _dilati_, and at xii 19 _naia_ for _nota_. These errors demonstrate that the rest of the tradition does not descend from _G_.

Korn gives an accurate transcription of the fragment in the introduction to his edition; photographs of parts of the fragment can be found at Chatelain, _Paleographie des classiques latins_, tab. xcix, 2 and E. A.

Lowe, _Codices Latini Antiquiores_, vol. IX, p. 40, no. 1377.

_B_ and _C_

_Monacensis latinus 384_ and _Mon. lat. 19476_, both dated by editors to the twelfth century, are descended from a common ancestor.

This is easily demonstrated by the large number of shared errors not found in other manuscripts[9]. At iv 36 _B_ and _C_ have _intendunt_ for the correct _intendent_, at viii 6 _uolo_ for _uoco_, at viii 18 _perueniemus_ for _inueniemur_ (_-ntur_,_-mus_), at viii 44 _illa_ for _ulla_, at viii 89 _cara_ for _care_, at ix 44 _fingit_ for _finget_, at ix 71 _quod_ for _cum_ (_FILT_) and _ut_ (_HM_), at ix 92 _praestat_ for _perstat_, at ix 97 _et_ for _ut_, at xiii 5 _certe est_ for _certe_, and at xiv 30 _culpatus_ for _culpatis_. In some of these passages _B_'s still visible original reading has been corrected by a later hand. In other passages it is clear from the signs of correction that _B_ originally agreed with _C_ in distinctive readings now preserved in C alone: _subito_ for _sed et_ (iii 27), _erat_ for _eras_ (vi 9), _occidit_ for _occidis_ (vi 11), _suspicit_ for _suscipit_ (ix 90), _parent_ for _darent_ (xvi 31).

[Footnote 9: The manuscripts were probably produced at the same German centre. Professor R. J. Tarrant has noted the presence of the _Ex Ponto_ in book-lists of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries from Blaubeuern, Tegernsee, Bamberg, Egmond, and Cracow (_Texts and Transmission_ 263); he suggests Tegernsee to me as a probable candidate for the production of _B_ and _C_.]

_B_ and _C_ on the whole offer a better text than any other manuscript.

At iii 44 _B1_ and _C_ omit the lost pentameter, where the other manuscripts offer interpolations. At iv 11 they alone give the probably correct _solus_ for _tristis_, at xii 3 _aut_ for _ast_, and at xvi 31 _tyrannis_ (conjectured by Heinsius) for _tyranni_. At v 40 _C_ and _B2_ alone have the correct _mancipii ... tui_ for _mancipium ... tuum_.

Both manuscripts naturally have readings peculiar to themselves. _B_ has about fifty unique readings. It places iii 11-12 after 13-14, omits v 37-40, and interchanges viii 49-50 and 51-52. At iv 34 _B_ alone has _erunt_ (for _erit_), conjectured by Heinsius; _C_ omits the word.

Similarly, at xi 21 _B_ and _F1_ have _mihi_, omitted by _C_; the other manuscripts have _tibi_. _B_ has _ab_ at i 9 for the other manuscripts'

_in_; _ab_ is possibly the true reading.

Under the influence of Ehwald, modern editors have wrongly taken some of _B_'s other readings to be correct, placing _aspicerem_ in the text for _prospicerem_ at ix 23, _ara_ for _ora_ at ix 115, and _illi_ for _illum_ at ix 126. At ix 73 editors print _B_ and _T_'s _quem_, which is clearly an interpolation for the awkward transmitted reading _qua_.

Unlike _C_, _B_ has been quite heavily corrected by later hands.

_C_ has more than one hundred readings peculiar to itself. Two of them I have accepted as correct: _summo_ (for _summum_; _H_ has _mundum_) at iii 32, and _horas_ (that is, _oras_) at vii 1; the reading is also given by _I_. It is possible that _C_'s _correptior_ should be read at xii 13 for _correptius_. At xiv 38 _C_'s _sceptius_ is the manuscript reading closest to the correct _Scepsius_ restored by Scaliger.

Most of _C_'s errors are trivial, but at some points it departs widely from the usual text. It omits ix 47 and xiv 37, and interchanges the second hemistichs of iii 26 and 28; xvi 30 is inserted by a later hand, perhaps in an erasure. At viii 43 it has _in uita_ for _officio_, at xiii 12 _contra uiam_ for _nouimus_, at xiv 36 _in_ for _loci_, and at xv 31 _colloquio_ for _uerum quid_.

_C_ also contains a greater number of purely palaeographical errors than any other manuscript: _hunc_ for _nunc_ (i 25), _humeris_ for _numeris_ (ii 30), _hec_ for _nec_ (ix 30), _lucos_ for _sucos_ (x 19), _hasto_ for _horto_ (xv 7), _ueiiuolique_ for _ueliuolique_ (xvi 21), _pretia_ for _pr(o)elia_ (xvi 23).

_B_ and _C_ sporadically offer the third declension accusative plural ending _-is_ (ix 4 _fascis_ _C_, ix 7 _partis_ _C_, ix 73 _rudentis_ _B_, x 17 _cantantis_ _B_, xii 30 _albentis_ _B_). But more usually all manuscripts, including _B_ and _C_, have the accusative in _-es_: compare for example ii 27 _partes_, iii 53 _purgantes_, ix 35 _praesentes_, and ix 42 _fasces_. The manuscripts show a similar variation in the earlier books of the _Ex Ponto_. The ninth-century Hamburg manuscript (_A_) sometimes offers accusatives in _-is_ where the other manuscripts, even _B_ and _C_, have _-es_ (I iv 23 _partis_, I v 11 _talis_, I vi 39 _ligantis_, I vi 51 _turris_). At I ii 4, _A_ has _omnes_, where _C1_ has _omnis_, and in general even in _A_ the accusative in _-es_ is the predominant form. For example, _A_ offers _auris_ at II iv 13 and II ix 25, but _aures_ at I ii 127, I ix 5, II v 33, and II ix 3. In view of the instability of the manuscript evidence[10], I have normalized the ending to _-es_ in all cases, considering the instances of _-is_ to be scribal interpolations.

[Footnote 10: G. P. Goold ("Amatoria Critica", _HSPh_ 69 [1965] 10) has an interesting discussion of the problems in establishing Ovid's orthography. For accusative plural endings in the third declension, he concludes that _-is_ for Ovid can be neither established nor excluded.]

Similarly, I have used the form _penna_ at iv 12 and vii 37, where _C_ offers _pinna_. _Penna_ is the form given in the ancient manuscripts of Virgil, and attested by Quintilian.

_MFHILT_

The other manuscripts I have collated belong to the vulgate class. They are not related to each other in the sense that _B_ and _C_ are related, nor does any of them possess independent authority as does _G_. Within the group firm lines of affiliation are hard to establish, and each of the manuscripts attests a handful of good readings that are found in few or none of the others, either by happy conjecture, or because a reading that was in circulation at the time as a variant chanced to get copied into a few surviving manuscripts. Professor R. J. Tarrant has noted that the presence of the _Ex Ponto_ in north-central France 'can be traced from the eleventh century onwards, first from echoes in Hildebert of Lavardin and Baudri de Bourgeuil, later from the extracts in the _Florilegium Gallicum_, and finally from the complete texts [which include our _H_ and _F_] ... that emanate from this region toward the end of the twelfth century' (_Texts and Transmission_ 263); the vulgate manuscripts seem to have been propagated from the text current in the region of Orleans.

_M_ and _F_ show some originality. Their readings at xvi 33 differ somewhat from the version of that passage in _HILT_. _F1_'s interpolation for the missing pentameter at iii 44 differs from that of _MHILT_, while _M_ has an interpolated distich following x 6 that is not otherwise attested.

Of the other manuscripts, _I_ agrees with _C_ in reading _horas_ (=_oras_) for _undas_ at vii 1, while _T_ is the only manuscript collated to have the correct _laeuus_ at ix 119 in the original hand (_F2_ gives it as a variant reading). Similarly, _H_ and _L_ each have a few peculiar variants.

As a group _MFHILT_ offer a good picture of the readings current in the later mediaeval period, and only rarely have I been obliged to cite a vulgate manuscript from the editions of Heinsius, Burman, or Lenz as testimony for a variant.

_M_

Heinsius did not have knowledge of _B_ or _C_, and seems to have considered his _codex Moreti_ (preserved at the Museum Plantin-Moretus in Antwerp as 'Latin, n 68 [anc. 43] [salle des reliures, n 32]' in Denuce's catalogue of the museum's collection) to be the best of the poor selection of manuscripts available; at xvi 33, understandably despairing of restoring the true reading, he accepted _M_'s reading pending the discovery of better manuscripts.

_M_ was dated by Heinsius to the twelfth or thirteenth century; Denuce assigns it to the twelfth century.

At viii 85 _M_ alone has the correct _ullo_ for the other manuscripts'

_illo_; this could naturally have been recovered by conjecture. At x 1 it has _cumerio_, the closest reading in the manuscripts collated to the correct _Cimmerio_; but Professor R. J. Tarrant informs me that _Cimmerio_ is also found in _British Library Harley 2607_.

_M_ has suffered from a certain degree of interpolation. Following x 6 there is the spurious distich _set cum nostra malis uexentur corpora multis / aspera non possum perpetiendo mori_. At ii 9 _Falerno_ is a deliberate alteration of _Falerna_. At x 49 _Niphates_ is an interpolation from Lucan III 245. At xiii 47 _duorum_ (also given as a variant reading by _F2_) looks like an attempt to correct the cryptic transmitted reading _deorum_, and at xv 15 _tellus regnata_ is presumably a metrical correction following the loss of _-que_ from _regnataque terra_, the reading of the other manuscripts. At xvi 25 _eticiusque_ looks to be a deliberate alteration of _Trinacriusque_, but I am not sure what the interpolation means.

_F_

_Francofurtanus Barth 110_, used by Burman, shows some signs of independence. At iii 44, where a pentameter has been lost, _B_ and _C_ omit the line, while the other manuscripts, including _M_, have the interpolation _indigus effectus omnibus ipse magis_; _F_ has the separate interpolation _Achillas Pharius abstulit ense caput_, also found in Heinsius' _fragmentum Louaniense_. _F_ omits viii 51-54, at xi 1 reads _Pollio_ for _Gallio_, and at xvi 33 has a reading somewhat different from those offered by the other manuscripts.

_F_ alone of the manuscripts collated offers the correct _audisse_ (for _audire_) at x 17. At xi 21 it and _B_ alone have the correct _mihi_ for _tibi_ (omitted by _C_). At xiv 7 it has the probably correct _muter_ for _mittar_, also found in _Bodleianus Canon. lat. 1_ and _Barberinus lat. 26_, both of the thirteenth century. With the exception of _muter_, these readings could have been recovered by conjecture; given the separative interpolation at iii 44, _F_ differs surprisingly little from the other manuscripts.

_H_

The thirteenth-century _Holkhamicus 322_, now _British Library add.

49368_, contains (with _I_) the correct _hanc_ at i 16, the other manuscripts having _ha_, _ah_ (_B_), or _a_ (_C_). At xvi 30, where I have printed _leuis_, the reading of most manuscripts, _H_ has _leui_, the conjecture of Heinsius; Professor R. J. Tarrant informs me that the same reading is found in _Othob. lat. 1469_. At iv 45 _H_'s _qua libet_ is the manuscript reading closest to Heinsius' correct _quamlibet_; most manuscripts have _quod licet_.

Most other variants in _H_ are trivial errors, although there seems to have been deliberate scribal alteration at x 18 (_sucus amarus erat_ for _lotos amara fuit_), xiv 38 (_Celsius_ for the usual _Septius_; Scaliger restored _Scepsius_), xvi 3 (_ueniet_ for _uenit et_; presumably the intermediate step was _uenit_), and perhaps at xiv 31 (_miserabilis_ for _uitabilis_).

_I_

The thirteenth-century _Laurentianus 36 32_, Lenz's and Andre's _m_, has the correct _perstas_ at x 83 for _praestas_; its reading is also found in _P_ and as a variant of _F2_. At vii 1 it shares with _C_ the reading _horas_ (=_oras_), which I have printed in preference to the usual _undas_.

At viii 15 _I_ has the hypercorrect _nil_ for _nihil_, and at xiii 26 _ethereos ... deos_ for _aetherias ... domos_, but in general has few signs of deliberate alteration.

_L_

_Lipsiensis bibl. ciu. Rep. I 2 7_, of the thirteenth century, has _haec_ at ix 103 for the other manuscripts' _et_. _Haec_ restores sense to the passage, and was the preferred reading of Heinsius; I consider it a scribal conjecture, now rendered obsolete by Professor R. J. Tarrant's more elegant _quae_. _L_'s text has clearly been tampered with at xiv 41 (_populum ... uertit in iram_ for _populi ... concitat iram_), but in general seems to have suffered little from interpolation. It is, however, of little independent value as a witness to the text.

_T_

_Turonensis 879_, written around the year 1200, was first fully collated by Andre for his edition; Lenz had earlier reported its readings for IV xvi and part of I i. At ix 119 only _T_ and _F2_ of the manuscripts collated have the correct _laeuus_, although other manuscripts come close, and the reading could have been recovered by conjecture. At xv 40 _T_ reads _transierit saeuos_ for _transit nostra feros_; clearly _nostra_ was at some point lost from the text, and metre forcibly restored.

_P_